Which after two floggings by eight wickets, and an innings and 135 runs, would have felt like a win.

Why the ICC, cricket’s governing body, allows India to get away with denying use of the DRS is beyond comprehension.

The ICC should legislate to make the DRS mandatory for all three formats in all countries. And if India holds out, tell them to get stuffed, and ban them from all formats until they comply.

Then we wouldn’t have howlers like Dar yesterday.

So to the fourth and final Test at Delhi starting on Friday. India has never won four Tests in a series in its history, and they have the ammo to fire again at the Australians.

Mixed news from the baggy green camp with Shane Watson returning after his one-match suspension, the subsequent dummy spit, and the birth of his first child.

But a big question mark over skipper Michael Clarke whose dickey back is again causing strife. He was clearly not fit enough to bat yesterday, and Friday isn’t far enough away.

Given Clarke is out of Delhi, Watson assumes the captaincy.

Then the selections become interesting.

No reason to change David Warner and Ed Cowan at the top of the order, but I’d bat Watson at three, with Hughes at four, to split up three lefties in a row, and the higher Watson bats the better he plays.

Bring in Usman Khawaja at five, and retain Steve Smith at six after his gritty 92 at Mohali,

Retain keeper Brad Haddin at seven for two reasons – firstly he’s the better gloveman and better batsman than Matt Wade and secondly Watson will need all the help he can get to lead the side, and Haddin is an experienced first-class captain with NSW.

He was in charge when Clarke left the field for treatment yesterday.

Mitchell Starc is bowling a lot of rubbish, but he is a genuine batsman and deserves to be promoted up the order, as does James Pattinson.

That leaves Peter Siddle at 10, and offie Nathan Lyon, the best of the spinners, at 11.

Doomed to fail ICC = India Controls Cricket. Good luck with the game not stagnating or even going backwards as other sports continue to be dynamic and respond to the changes in global audience desires.

I agree with you the ICC is a toothless tiger but there is also very difficult to enforce any change.

The BCCI has more cash reserves than the other nine Test playing nations put together and it chooses to use a considerable amount of dollars to gain alliances around the table in Dubai when it comes to voting.

IND has financially helped prop up the cricket associations in Zimbabwe, West Indies, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

And, despite the political animosity between Delhi and Islamabad, Indian cricket has maintained a close association with the PCB at a time when nobody will tour the country.

So, when it comes to a vote being taken around the ICC board table, IND by weight of its financial clout is almost guaranteed the support of five other nations, thus giving them a 6-4 majority.

Thus, it is very difficult for the ICC to tell IND to get stuffed.

The DRS situation is a classic point. IND does not want it. So, at the vote in Dubai, the usage of the DRS was passed on the proviso that both competing nations in any one series agree to use it. The codicil about individual choice per country was supported by guess who? Again, IND got the vote that it ‘paid’ for.

Any changes in the principal way that the ICC operates with regard to voting rights etc would require changes to its constitution, and once again, if IND does not like what is proposed there is very little chance of it being adopted.

Everyone needs to remember that the ICC is a not a self-governing neutral body that oversees the sport.

It is a body that comprises at the top tier (where the voting power resides) delegates from the ten-Test playing nations. And as such, any major initiatives put forward at the ICC table have to receive a majority vote to be passed.

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that the sport is not governed on a commission basis like the AFL has for many years and the NRL has followed suit. When you have independent commissioners who are not beholden to the whims of individual clubs/nations the best result for the sport is more often to the fore.

Sadly, while IND continues to be the monetary epicentre of the sport it will continue to lobby behind the scenes to get what it wants.

And with so many other countries happy to take IND money to help prop-up their own backyard we can scream all we want for things t change but it ain’t going to happen I am afraid.

1. Last checked, Aleem Dar was a member of the ICC Emirates Elite Panel of Umpires.
2. “Had Hughes batted another 10 overs for 15-20 runs, India wouldn’t have had time to score the necessaries, and the Australians would have salvaged an honourable draw.” Or, he could have gotten out next ball, and the umpires would have upheld the Brad Haddin catch that was not given, and India would have been chasing 30 less.We can would have, should have, could have all we want, but for a team that scores 400 in the first innings of a 4 day game and still contrives to lose, there are really no excuses.
3. If the ICC is so keen on the DRS, as the author assumes, why has it yet to release the findings from testing all the various technologies that happened at Cambridge. And why is the ICC reluctant to bankroll a system they so obviously believe assists thier umpires in better decision making?

Maybe, just maybe, instead of making a case against the BCCI, there is a stronger case to be made about the ICC and its ineptitude?

Homer, no maybes, your last 14 words nailed the real problem – the ICC. It has always been a toothless, gutless, pathetic organisation where ICC members enjoy flying first-class and sitting in the best seats in the house at internationals. While they are swanning around they just too busy to do what they are supposed to do – run the game. India holds the ICC to ransom by providing 75% of the income generated around the globe. Stuff ‘em, they must still conform like every other country.

Yes, it’s the ICC – yes, it’s the BCCI – yes it’s Aleem Dar – yes it’s the Indian dustbowls – yes, it’s the pervasive Indian crowds, climate, conditions. Banish them all and we will have the unconquerable Aussie supremacy of the past back in short order.

Not for one moment, Icf, has Australia ever put its short-term interest above the health of the game. Cricket world-wide would be much the poorer without the magnificent contribution Australian coaches have made the last two, or so, decades.

One salient point: cricket everywhere, and especially on the subcontinent, has struggled what to do with illegal deliveries. Australia went through a similar period of angst over illegal deliveries in our domestic competition in the late 50s and early 60s. What did the Australian authorities do? Stamped it out, that’s what they did; no attempts were made to tamper with the laws of cricket to solve our problems. Don’t ever forget it was an Australian umpire (Col Egar) who called the Australian paceman, Ian Meckiff, for throwing against the Saffers in the early 60s.

When India takes as much time solving its, and others, problems in world cricket they’ll be granted the respect Australia’s received these last 50 years. At the moment all I can see it short-term selfishness on India’s part.

Well, CA made 40 million off the BG series in 2012. The ECB recorded a profit of 30 million pounds off the Pataudi Trophy in 2011. Mind, india were swept in both the series. And I would like to believe that the time on bloc voting as passed, since we have had Sri Lanka and Pakistan both block BCCI initiatives in the ICC, while CA has played ball.

That said, the ICC is neither willing to bankroll the DRS that is so wants utilized, nor is it in any way, shape or form, laying down strict specifications of what the DRS should be and what the technologies should do. So, you have hawkeye, Eagle Eye and Virtual Eye, all three of which give umpires different data to work with. And you have Hotspot, that can or cannot be used by various countries, depending on cost and government clearance. And then you have stump mics, some as sophisticated as Snicko while others as pedestrian as a mic placed under the stump.

And then you have a process that is inherently flawed.

The DRS debate has been beaten to death, and the ICC is no wiser in spelling out the exact specifications of the technologies in use or addressing the concerns of its member constituents , whether in terms of procedure, costs or technological deficiencies.

Reminds me of the WADA debate – the BCCI took a hardline on the”whereabouts clause”, and once it did, the CA was quick to align with the BCCI’s misgivings about the issue, despite the ICC pushing hard to enforce WADA diktats as is.

Wade will play ahead of Haddin because the selectors won’t admit they got it wrong.
Khawaja will be placed on injury standby for Clarke again but Clarke will play, Khawaja won’t be released in time for the shield final and will get screwed by the selectors again. It is no longer possible to deny that they are running an agenda against him.
Siddle will retain no.8 in the batting not because he’s any good but because he’s a lion heart and leads the attack and will claim seniority.
Australia won’t play 6 specialist batsmen, we need allrounders, Arthur has said so about 47 times, he’s wrong but he believes it so I expect the big show or Henriques to get another crack.

Not to interfere with your wanderings through fantasy and drivel land but I’ve never once called for Haddin to come back – go ahead check, I’ll wait. The only reason I wouldn’t swap Wade back in now is that Haddin is a better keeper to spin and he is already in the side. Wade will be back for the Ashes.

I stand corrected, bit extreme in your response but hey, maybe we’re just a bit calmer in fantasydrivelville where I permanantly reside, better than over agressivetown, or it’s only sportsville though.

Khawaja has earned his opportunity, given this is a dead rubber and given he was our number 1 reserve batsman he should come in. Overall the 3 loses are really a horrifying indication for Australia’s bench strength. The Australian selectors/coaching staff need to address this as soon as possible and first develop the confidence in youngsters and then once they are settled, they will automatically learn to behave looking at all the legends traveling all over the world.

Wouldn’t it be great if Clarke sat it out and let the other six batsmen have a crack. Not bloody likely.

Moises surely will get a rest but as you say good old Maxi looms. This unproven allrounder crap is insane.

If Arthur and Clarke think they will be competive in the next test and England with 5 bats they are bonkers. I’m most disappointed ih Rod Marsh for agreeing to this nonsense. Must be some West Australian mafia thing going on. What about Andy Bichel? Do they tie him up and gag him at selection meetings.

Awww, here we go again… Aussies crying sour grapes as usual – gurus, experts, rookies, et. al. What about Pujara’s dismissal for 1 which was a bigger howler. Cricket’s caucasians should learn to look at DRS objectively instead of ganging up along partisan lines. The world’s changing, so give up this old school “white is right” attitude. The DRS clearly has its faults and errors – go ask the S. Africans who faced the brunt of it in 2012 or Chappelli to name one expert. Those computer simulations do look compelling to anyone who is blindly willing to lap it up without asking the hard questions. The grass always looks greener on the other side. I can see a scenario where the DRS is adopted and the gurus, experts and rookies here start crying over spilt milk on being at the receiving end of new digital, automated howlers.

What a ridiculous uneducated comment Indian cricket fan. The DRS may, just may, have its shortcomings, but it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than the human eye can ever hope to be. Make it mandatory, and no-one has a beef. That’s a plain simple fact. I’ll bet if an umpire’s decision cost India a series of import in the future, you will be the first one to cry murder. You can’t have it both ways. And by the way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with colour.

A system of institutionalising dissent in the umpires decision, of not criticising but glorifying a batsman’s decision to stand his ground and say to the umpire ‘You’re wrong, Im staying’ … that’s just Not Cricket.

I dont often agree with the BCCI, but they have this one nailed.

Hire umpires, pay them well, and let them make decisions. If they want to use technology, good on them. But to allow a batsman to openly dissent in the umpire’s decision and demand a review – thats simply not cricket.

that sounds a little old fashioned, or pompous, if you don’t mind me saying. There can be no more disgraceful display of dissent than was witnessed durng the ‘monkey-gate’ tour, when the Indians threatened to quit the tour and demanded a certain umpire be dropped. Of course with DRS the fielding side can also ask for a review. It must be humiliationg for an umpire to make a decision, only for it to then be proven wrong in front of a tv audience of millions. I bet the umpires are happy to have DRS in place, perhaps it needs to be taken out of the players hands, but the present use of DRS is better than no DRS.

I agree that DRS should be mandatory for all tests and one dayers, but suggest that rather than players referring, have the umpires able to refer as required. Players losing referrals for a decision that would have gone their way had the original decision seems a little unreasonable. I reckon for 80% of the howlers that get made, the umpire has doubt (certainly from what I heard on the Roar’s commentary yesterday, the umpire had a good think about at least one of the dodgy calls). They seem happy enough to admit uncertainty for run outs.

The BCCI has bought and paid for at least four other members of the ICC, so good luck on getting progress there; administrators will drain the game for every last cent through pointless 20-20 contests, two test series and one dayers, maximising their TV revenue until the whole thing falls apart, before living out their days fat and happy on tropical islands.

Oh Lord, better uneducated than educated in blind fallacies and misplaced innuendos. Don’t let your name get to your head. If you’ve got a problem with bad umpiring then call it bad umpiring – not bad umpiring against the Aussies. The first line in your article should have should have mentioned of Hughes and Pujara in the same breath. Besides, the argument is frivolous as Hughes’ dismissal was not the turning point as you claim. He’s barely clutching on to his place in the side, was just catching up to the law of averages and would have gone sooner or later. Rather than spray “ridiculous” and “uneducated” indiscriminately as you seem to commonly stoop to, you should debate the merits of the case and live upto your “Expert” billing and age as reflected in your photograph.

What’s with the “colour” comment? How pathetic that! For goodness sake, does that make every other cricketing nation also racist because they have embraced the DRS? The simple fact is that India, and only India refuse to embrace this technology. Sure it’s not perfect, but it does get rid of the howlers. Come on BCCI, stop being so short-sited and intransigent and embrace DRS, like everyone else has.